Viewing Single Post From: KC responds on Iqbal

Viewing Single Post From: KC responds on Iqbal
Quasimodo	Jun 29 2009, 05:45 PM
Posts: 4,878 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	KC's further comment in a post at DIW: I suspect that Lamb turned the case over for Nifong for political reasons, and I doubt he did it of his own accord: I'd be amazed if the order didn't come from either Chalmers or Patrick Baker. But, until the Kerner brief, we had never received even a possible explanation on the record from a representative of Durham as to why the DPD acted as it did. We now have such a possible (very after-the-fact) explanation. Unfortunately, it's not a well thought-out excuse. But I see no reason why, on this point, the players' attorneys shouldn't accept Durham at its word, since doing so provides some circumstantial evidence of an intent to conceal. The Lamb-Nifong notice essentially puts Durham in an impossible position. There is no innocent explanation for the move. Durham has never even tried, before last week's filings, to come up with a public rationalization for the decision. Kerner would have better served her client by simply staying away from the matter. That she didn't was a mistake. Edited by Quasimodo, Jun 29 2009, 05:45 PM.


KC responds on Iqbal · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers